Americans by 9 percentage points have a favorable view of the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against it. By 49%-40% those surveyed say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms, as "enthusiastic" or "pleased," while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as "disappointed" or "angry."

This was fairly predictable. The American people did not have clearly formed opinions on the content of this bill. They had vague opinions on the bill that were heavily influenced by the media narrative surrounding the development and legislative process of the bill's progress. Over the weekend, that narrative went from one of quagmire, self-recrimination among Democrats and dire warnings among Republicans, to one of accomplishment, celebrations among Democrats, and dire warnings among Republicans. It would have been very surprising if that shift in narratives hadn't produced a sizable shift in public opinion, and since the bill was only narrowly unpopular before the vote, it's now narrowly popular.

Moreover, Republicans were always, quite correctly, clear-eyed about the fact that the public's opinion of the bill would be influenced by the political narrative as much as by its content. Ezra Klein recalls Mitch McConnell's explanation of this:

"What I tried to do and what John [Boehner] did very skillfully, as well, was to unify our members in opposition to it. Had we not done that, I don't think the public would have been as appalled as they became over the fact that the government was now running banks, insurance companies, car companies, taking over the student-loan business, which they're going to try to do in this health care bill, and taking over one-sixth of the economy. Public opinion can change, but it is affected by what elected officials do."

Mr Klein sums up: "Put simply, if Republicans had worked with Democrats on health-care reform, the bill would not have been as unpopular." Now we appear to be finding that with the bill having passed, it may not be unpopular at all. People have spent a lot of time fretting about the supposedly undemocratic implications of passing a bill that the majority of Americans, in polls, said they didn't like. Those people can calm down now, I guess.

National polls are pointless when it comes to congress. Members only care how they poll in their own district. To paraphrase an old cliché, “everybody hates all of congress except their own representative.”

It's not perfect, but it sure is a hell of a lot better than the status quo.

Now, all we have to do, is somehow use the 50% more that the US spends (wastes) on health care and use it more efficiently.

All those clowns out there who go on about freedom and tyranny of government are just stick in the mud intellectual neanderthals.

There are a huge set of side benefits this bill will produce - simple ones like being able to change jobs and move without worrying about losing or getting new health care. And not having to worry so much.

Anyway, you can't talk to the deaf and dumb, especially when they are screaming complete nonsense and perpetuating falsehoods at the top of their lungs.

Gosh, I guess Karl Rove was wrong; repeating a lie over and over again *doesn't* make it true. No doubt, the Republicans gave that their best shot, and lost with it. I am looking forward to their candidates' responses to the questions they will face this fall about just what in this bill they want to repeal. Shall we reopen Granny's Doughnut Hole ? Let insurance companies deny coverage to the sick ? Or dump those who get sick ? It ought to be a hoot. Are they really that stupid ? I've found myself pondering that question over and over again for years now, and the answer keeps coming up yes.

This is a process of over-learning, or perhaps better stated, taking one's electoral base too literally. I detect little appetite for cut-throat captialism except among the "Orangists" like Boehner. Polls are polls. Elections have consequences, I seem to recall someone named McCain saying. We are living with the consequences of the 2008 elections.

Rather than blathering about the evils of government when elections don't go your way may I suggest that those who worship at Ayn Rand's idol move to Somalia. There has been no effective government there for 20+ years so you get what you pay for and eat what you kill. Have the courage of your convictions.

The poll just reflects that the people expect their leaders to lead... When they don't lead, everything is less favorable, but when they do something - Wow! It's exhilarating! Especially when they do something that actually helps me and people I know rather than do something like condemn actions of a foreign country...

This mostly illustrates the psychology of change. People become emotionally comfortable with a status quo, and nervous when faced with change- especially sudden, dramatic change, such as this.

However, once the change happens, people become surprisingly comfortable with the status quo again. When it was proposed to give women the vote, people protested it on the grounds that it would end civilisation as we know it. Afterwards, they got used to it, and now it is unimaginable that it should be repealed. The same reaction was on show when the UK proposed to abolish the death penalty- most of the public was against abolishing it, but after it was abolished, people accepted the new status quo.

Of course, the same thing happened with the abolishing of slavery and the end of segregation in the US. Ditto with the end of Apartheid in South Africa- many whites emigrated in the belief that the world would end after such a big change.

The dire warnings of the Republicans that this change will doom America and bring on the apocalypse can therefore be seen in context- irrational fear of change. Now that the ill is passed, that osychological hurdle is over. People are already getting used to the new status quo.

One year from now, if you propose repealing the bill and taking health insurance away from over 30million people, you'd have a revolt on your hands. People will fear to change what they've become familiar with.

It's all about social psychology. But if there's a lesson for change agents here, it is not to repeat Obama's ealry mistake: don't force major changes down peoples' throats without giving them a chance to get used to the idea, or you WILL meet stiff, irrational opposition.

I can't say I think too much about a poll like this. I'm sure I can read that poll to support a view that the Democrats lying about the budget effects is the cause. Who knows... A majority supported invading Iraq, something like 70%... But if it helps you sleep at night, fine, this poll result was fairly predictable, since Americans didn't have clearly formed opinions about the bill, and they were heavily influenced by a false, negative narrative driven by the media and the Republicans.

Anyway, I think reality will drive this. The best the President can hope for is GDP growth and some job growth, despite the bill, until he leaves office. Then he can claim credit, as he will, for anything and everything, and deflect blame. But, the underlying budget problem won't go away, and this will be part of the story, and eventually (very soon) deficits will have to be addressed via tough cuts. Medicare, Medicaid, and now--what do we call this, Middleclassaid?--will have to be dealt with. But I'm becoming convinced DC doesn't have the ability to be serious.

"People have spent a lot of time fretting about the supposedly undemocratic implications of passing a bill that the majority of Americans, in polls, said they didn't like."

The role of a politician is to not merely commission a poll asking constituents about a bill, and then blindly follow the results. The poll results, as well as direct constituent communication at town halls and via the phone, as well as consultations would experts, should all play a huge role in the politician's decision making, but ultimately he should go with the vote that feels right to him. If he's in agreement with public opinion, no worries. If he's not, it's his job to justify his vote to the public. If the public doesn't agree, fortunately, we have something called "elections" that happen fairly frequently, and the voters can fire that politician.

Blah, the Iraq Surge was unpopular, yet conservatives who weep now because the "net negative disapproval rating of 5%-ish" healthcare reform bill passed didn't cry when Bush went against public opinion. Enough of this, "Democracy has died; we live in tyranny now," bullshit. There's an election in just 8 months, not 8 years.

This bill overwhelmingly benefits the working poor, those who are supporting themselves in jobs with low pay and no benefits. The market for individual health insurance in this country has been a disgrace; now people who have no other option will be treated as fairly as those in their employer's group plan. That the Democrats didn't explain it this way puzzled me. It was a serious blunder.

@ ccusa: "The best the President can hope for is GDP growth and some job growth, despite the bill, until he leaves office. Then he can claim credit, as he will, for anything and everything, and deflect blame."

He may as well claim credit for things he had no hand it, given that the other side of the coin is that he will likewise be blamed by voters for any continuing problems in the economy no matter what impact his actions actually had.

The same thing has happened with every US war I can remember: The popularity of the war goes way up once the attack has been commenced. The purely political interpretation is that the Republicans had better find more to run on next fall than simply being opposed to health care. I used the phrase "health care" deliberately because everyone likes health and everyone likes care, and that's how the Democrats will phrase and frame the argument. There are some Republican congressional challengers who are all fired up to do battle against socialized medicine next fall, but they will find themselves on a one-trick pony tilting at windmills.

There are undoubtedly lots of good arguments against this bill, but no one has read its thousands of pages of mind-numbing bureaucratese, and the arguments that can be made at this point are either too wonkish or two hypothetical to get many people fired up. The fact is, by next fall it will be very much yesterday's news. Nothing particularly good or bad that anyone can see in their personal life will have come of it by then. I'm not saying that Republican challengers should start saying they like Obamacare after all. In fact they're pretty much required and expected to be a against it. However if they think that merely being against Obamacare will sweep them to victory, they will get a rude awakening. They will have to campaign, as Scott Brown did, on a wide range of issues and with pragmatic positions on them. Furthermore, they will actually have to be good honorable people who are also good campaigners. "I'm a Republican and I'm against health care" is not a winning stump speech.

If nothing else thanks for all the entertainment you provide these days, America. Watching the Hatfields and McCoys in your Congress slug it out as they fight over the scraps of wealth left over from your glory days enlivens otherwise dull international news days.

The public isn't buying it. Make sure you come armed with information because the Pro-Obama propaganda voices like the author of this article are going to be trying to spin this loser scam bill into a win for Obama.

Don't let them: this bill forces you to buy expensive corporate healthcare from predatory lenders. If you don't, the IRS will come after you. Healthcare premiums are going to rise. And it adds trillions to the debt.

It's a bad bill and the Obamacrats know it. They just want you to forget it. Don't forget it!